Petitioner prevailed on the allegation that Respondent failed to provide notice of the board meeting in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804, resulting in a refund of $500.00. Respondent prevailed on the allegation that the board meeting was required to be open, as the meeting was properly closed to receive legal advice under a statutory exception.
Why this result: Petitioner lost the open meeting claim because the meeting was protected by the legal advice exception under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1).
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to provide notice of board meeting to members.
Petitioner alleged Respondent conducted an unnoticed board meeting regarding obtaining legal advice. Respondent conceded the meeting was unnoticed. The ALJ concluded Respondent was required to provide notice to members that it would be conducting a board meeting to consider legal advice from an attorney that would be closed to members, and failed to do so.
Orders: Respondent must pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. Respondent is directed to comply with the notice requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)
Board meeting was not open to all members of the association.
Petitioner alleged the meeting, attended by two board members and an attorney, should have been open. Respondent contended the meeting was a permitted closed session to consider legal advice from an attorney regarding reorganization/disbanding, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1). The ALJ concluded the meeting was not required to be open because the board members were solely receiving legal advice from an attorney.
If the HOA board meets with their attorney, do they still have to notify homeowners about the meeting?
Short Answer
Yes. Even if the meeting will be closed for legal advice, the board is legally required to provide notice to the members that the meeting is occurring.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that while a board can close a meeting to receive legal advice, they cannot skip the notice requirement. The HOA in this case violated the law by failing to provide notice of a board meeting where they obtained legal advice.
Alj Quote
Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 when it failed to provide notice to its members of the March 31, 2022 board meeting where it obtained legal advice from an attorney.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
meetings
notice
legal advice
Question
Can the HOA board exclude homeowners from a meeting if they are discussing legal advice?
Short Answer
Yes. The board is permitted to close a portion of a meeting if it is limited to considering legal advice from an attorney.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that the HOA did not violate the open meeting law by keeping the meeting closed, because the sole purpose was to receive legal advice. This is a specific exception to the open meeting requirement.
Alj Quote
The Administrative law Judge further concludes that Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804 when it failed to make the March 31, 2022 board meeting open to members when the only information discussed and obtained was legal advice from an attorney.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)
Topic Tags
meetings
exclusions
attorney-client privilege
Question
Does a gathering of board members count as a 'meeting' if they are just meeting informally or for a workshop?
Short Answer
Yes. If a quorum of the board meets to discuss association business, even informally, they must follow open meeting and notice laws.
Detailed Answer
The decision cites the statute stating that any quorum meeting informally to discuss business must comply with notice and open meeting provisions, regardless of whether a formal vote is taken.
Alj Quote
Any quorum of the board of directors that meets informally to discuss association business, including workshops, shall comply with the open meeting and notice provisions of this section without regard to whether the board votes or takes any action on any matter at that informal meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(4)
Topic Tags
meetings
quorum
workshops
Question
If I file a petition against my HOA and win, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fees?
Short Answer
Yes, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the homeowner prevails on the issue.
Detailed Answer
In this case, because the homeowner prevailed on the issue regarding the lack of notice, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay back the $500 filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Order of the ALJ
Topic Tags
fees
reimbursement
penalties
Question
Does a violation of the open meeting law always result in a fine for the HOA?
Short Answer
No. The judge has discretion and may decide that no civil penalty is appropriate even if a violation occurred.
Detailed Answer
Although the HOA was found to have violated the notice statute, the ALJ explicitly stated that no civil penalty was appropriate in this specific matter.
Alj Quote
No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.
Legal Basis
Discretion of ALJ
Topic Tags
civil penalty
fines
enforcement
Question
What legal standard do I have to meet to prove my HOA violated the rules?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
The decision defines the burden of proof as the greater weight of the evidence, sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side rather than the other.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
Topic Tags
legal standard
burden of proof
evidence
Case
Docket No
23F-H038-REL
Case Title
Clifford S. Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date
2023-04-20
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If the HOA board meets with their attorney, do they still have to notify homeowners about the meeting?
Short Answer
Yes. Even if the meeting will be closed for legal advice, the board is legally required to provide notice to the members that the meeting is occurring.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that while a board can close a meeting to receive legal advice, they cannot skip the notice requirement. The HOA in this case violated the law by failing to provide notice of a board meeting where they obtained legal advice.
Alj Quote
Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 when it failed to provide notice to its members of the March 31, 2022 board meeting where it obtained legal advice from an attorney.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
meetings
notice
legal advice
Question
Can the HOA board exclude homeowners from a meeting if they are discussing legal advice?
Short Answer
Yes. The board is permitted to close a portion of a meeting if it is limited to considering legal advice from an attorney.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that the HOA did not violate the open meeting law by keeping the meeting closed, because the sole purpose was to receive legal advice. This is a specific exception to the open meeting requirement.
Alj Quote
The Administrative law Judge further concludes that Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804 when it failed to make the March 31, 2022 board meeting open to members when the only information discussed and obtained was legal advice from an attorney.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)
Topic Tags
meetings
exclusions
attorney-client privilege
Question
Does a gathering of board members count as a 'meeting' if they are just meeting informally or for a workshop?
Short Answer
Yes. If a quorum of the board meets to discuss association business, even informally, they must follow open meeting and notice laws.
Detailed Answer
The decision cites the statute stating that any quorum meeting informally to discuss business must comply with notice and open meeting provisions, regardless of whether a formal vote is taken.
Alj Quote
Any quorum of the board of directors that meets informally to discuss association business, including workshops, shall comply with the open meeting and notice provisions of this section without regard to whether the board votes or takes any action on any matter at that informal meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(4)
Topic Tags
meetings
quorum
workshops
Question
If I file a petition against my HOA and win, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fees?
Short Answer
Yes, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the homeowner prevails on the issue.
Detailed Answer
In this case, because the homeowner prevailed on the issue regarding the lack of notice, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay back the $500 filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Order of the ALJ
Topic Tags
fees
reimbursement
penalties
Question
Does a violation of the open meeting law always result in a fine for the HOA?
Short Answer
No. The judge has discretion and may decide that no civil penalty is appropriate even if a violation occurred.
Detailed Answer
Although the HOA was found to have violated the notice statute, the ALJ explicitly stated that no civil penalty was appropriate in this specific matter.
Alj Quote
No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.
Legal Basis
Discretion of ALJ
Topic Tags
civil penalty
fines
enforcement
Question
What legal standard do I have to meet to prove my HOA violated the rules?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
The decision defines the burden of proof as the greater weight of the evidence, sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side rather than the other.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
Topic Tags
legal standard
burden of proof
evidence
Case
Docket No
23F-H038-REL
Case Title
Clifford S. Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date
2023-04-20
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford S. Burnes(petitioner; witness) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association member Also known as Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes,; appeared on behalf of himself,.
Respondent Side
John T. Crotty(HOA attorney) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Appeared on behalf of Respondent,.
Esmeralda Sarina Ayala-Martinez(board member; witness) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Also referred to as Esmeralda Sarina-Ayala Martinez or Esmerita Martinez; testified on behalf of Respondent.
Dave Madill(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Vice President; also referred to as Dave Matt or Dave Medil; was one of the two board members who met with the attorney.
Joseph Martinez(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Husband of Esmeralda Sarina Ayala-Martinez; third board member.
David A. Melvoy(HOA attorney/legal counsel) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Provided legal advice during the underlying May 31, 2022, closed meeting; also referred to as David Mackoy, Eoy, or Eway,,.
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Susan Nicolson(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmission,.
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmission,.
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmission,.
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmission,.
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmission,.
The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition, finding that the Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6). The violation occurred because the Association's governing documents did not permit secret ballots, necessitating that the completed ballot contain the name, address, and signature of the voter, a requirement the distributed ballots failed to meet. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee and comply with the statute henceforth.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of voting statute requiring name, address, and signature on completed ballot.
Petitioner alleged that the HOA's vote by written ballot was non-compliant because the individual ballots lacked the required name, address, and signature of the voter. The ALJ concluded that since the community documents did not permit secret ballots, the plain language of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) required the ballot itself (distinct from the envelope) to contain the name, address, and signature, and the HOA failed to meet this requirement.
Orders: Petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 and henceforth comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6).
Can my HOA use secret ballots where I only sign the envelope?
Short Answer
Only if the community's governing documents explicitly permit secret ballots.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, an HOA cannot use secret ballots (where identification is only on the envelope) unless the community documents specifically permit them. If the documents are silent on the matter, the ballot itself must contain the voter's identification.
Alj Quote
The completed ballot shall contain the name, address and signature of the person voting, except that if the community documents permit secret ballots, only the envelope shall contain the name, address and signature of the voter… Nothing in the Association’s governing documents permitted secret ballots.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6)
Topic Tags
voting
ballots
governing documents
Question
What specific information must be written on an HOA ballot?
Short Answer
The ballot must contain the voter's name, address, and signature.
Detailed Answer
Unless secret ballots are authorized by the governing documents, the ballot itself must include three specific items: the voter's name, the voter's address, and the voter's signature.
Alj Quote
Accordingly, the completed ballots in the vote at issue were required to contain the name, address, and signature of the person voting.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6)
Topic Tags
voting
compliance
Question
Does signing my signature count as writing my name on a ballot?
Short Answer
No, a signature and a name are separate legal requirements.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that a signature does not satisfy the requirement to provide a name. The statute lists them separately, meaning both must be present on the ballot.
Alj Quote
Further, the plain language of the statute identifies that each ballot must contain the name, address, and signature of the person voting. The signature is a separate requirement from the name, and the ballot was required to have all three items.
Legal Basis
Statutory Interpretation
Topic Tags
voting
legal definitions
Question
Can the HOA claim the envelope and ballot together count as a 'completed ballot'?
Short Answer
No, the law distinguishes between the ballot itself and the envelope.
Detailed Answer
The HOA cannot argue that the envelope is part of the ballot to satisfy identification requirements when secret ballots are not permitted. The statute treats the ballot and the envelope as distinct items.
Alj Quote
The plan language of the statute delineates between the ballot in a vote and the envelope in a secret ballot vote.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
Topic Tags
voting
ballots
Question
Who has to prove that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the complaint must provide enough evidence to prove that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the statute.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6).
Legal Basis
Administrative Procedure
Topic Tags
procedure
burden of proof
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
If the Administrative Law Judge rules in favor of the homeowner, they may order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee paid to the Department of Real Estate.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
penalties
reimbursement
Question
What agency handles disputes between homeowners and HOAs in Arizona?
Short Answer
The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
Detailed Answer
Homeowners can file petitions regarding violations of community documents or statutes with the Department of Real Estate, which are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Alj Quote
The Department is authorized by statute to receive and to decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and from homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
agencies
Case
Docket No
23F-H030-REL
Case Title
Clifford S. Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date
2023-04-17
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA use secret ballots where I only sign the envelope?
Short Answer
Only if the community's governing documents explicitly permit secret ballots.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, an HOA cannot use secret ballots (where identification is only on the envelope) unless the community documents specifically permit them. If the documents are silent on the matter, the ballot itself must contain the voter's identification.
Alj Quote
The completed ballot shall contain the name, address and signature of the person voting, except that if the community documents permit secret ballots, only the envelope shall contain the name, address and signature of the voter… Nothing in the Association’s governing documents permitted secret ballots.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6)
Topic Tags
voting
ballots
governing documents
Question
What specific information must be written on an HOA ballot?
Short Answer
The ballot must contain the voter's name, address, and signature.
Detailed Answer
Unless secret ballots are authorized by the governing documents, the ballot itself must include three specific items: the voter's name, the voter's address, and the voter's signature.
Alj Quote
Accordingly, the completed ballots in the vote at issue were required to contain the name, address, and signature of the person voting.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6)
Topic Tags
voting
compliance
Question
Does signing my signature count as writing my name on a ballot?
Short Answer
No, a signature and a name are separate legal requirements.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that a signature does not satisfy the requirement to provide a name. The statute lists them separately, meaning both must be present on the ballot.
Alj Quote
Further, the plain language of the statute identifies that each ballot must contain the name, address, and signature of the person voting. The signature is a separate requirement from the name, and the ballot was required to have all three items.
Legal Basis
Statutory Interpretation
Topic Tags
voting
legal definitions
Question
Can the HOA claim the envelope and ballot together count as a 'completed ballot'?
Short Answer
No, the law distinguishes between the ballot itself and the envelope.
Detailed Answer
The HOA cannot argue that the envelope is part of the ballot to satisfy identification requirements when secret ballots are not permitted. The statute treats the ballot and the envelope as distinct items.
Alj Quote
The plan language of the statute delineates between the ballot in a vote and the envelope in a secret ballot vote.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
Topic Tags
voting
ballots
Question
Who has to prove that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the complaint must provide enough evidence to prove that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the statute.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6).
Legal Basis
Administrative Procedure
Topic Tags
procedure
burden of proof
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
If the Administrative Law Judge rules in favor of the homeowner, they may order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee paid to the Department of Real Estate.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
penalties
reimbursement
Question
What agency handles disputes between homeowners and HOAs in Arizona?
Short Answer
The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
Detailed Answer
Homeowners can file petitions regarding violations of community documents or statutes with the Department of Real Estate, which are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Alj Quote
The Department is authorized by statute to receive and to decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and from homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
agencies
Case
Docket No
23F-H030-REL
Case Title
Clifford S. Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date
2023-04-17
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford S. Burnes(petitioner) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Also referred to as Clifford (Norm) Burnes and Clifford Barnes. Appeared pro se, testified on his own behalf.
Respondent Side
John T. Crotty(HOA attorney) LAW OFFICES OF COLLIN T. WELCH Represented Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association. Referred to as Mr. Kate in transcript.
Esmeralda Serena Ayala-Martinez(HOA board president / witness) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Also referred to as Serena Martinez. Called as witness by Petitioner.
David Medil(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Listed as a board member in testimony (also referred to as 'Dave Matt').
Joseph Martinez(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Listed as a board member in testimony (also referred to as 'Joseph Mar Martinez').
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Also referred to as Tammy Igenir.
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
A. Hansen(ADRE Staff Recipient) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case transmission.
V. Nunez(ADRE Staff Recipient) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case transmission.
D. Jones(ADRE Staff Recipient) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case transmission.
L. Abril(ADRE Staff Recipient) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case transmission.
Other Participants
Carolyn Wesen Mo(observer) Member of the public Present during the hearing.
Collin T. Welch(Attorney (Firm Principal)) LAW OFFICES OF COLLIN T. WELCH Name appears in firm name affiliation of Respondent's counsel.
The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The ALJ found the Respondent violated Bylaw section 7.1 by failing to hold an annual members meeting in 2021 and 2022. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500 filing fee and ensure future compliance with Bylaw section 7.1. No civil penalty was imposed.
Why this result: The violation (failure to hold an annual member meeting) was undisputed by the Respondent, and Respondent's counsel conceded there were no legal defenses to this fact.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to hold an annual members meeting in two years and ignoring members written petitions and requests for a meeting
It was undisputed that the Respondent HOA failed to hold an annual meeting of the members from March 2020 to the time of the hearing. The ALJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated section 7.1 of its Bylaws.
Orders: Respondent must pay the Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days and is directed to comply with section 7.1 of its Bylaws going forward. No civil penalty was found appropriate.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1318
Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.1
Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.2
Respondent’s Bylaws sections 12.1 – 12.3
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Annual Meeting, Bylaws Violation, Filing Fee Refund, Administrative Hearing, Planned Community
Can an HOA skip annual member meetings due to ongoing litigation or bankruptcy proceedings?
Short Answer
No. Legal defenses based on external issues like litigation or bankruptcy may not validate the failure to hold meetings required by bylaws.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the HOA attempted to argue that bankruptcy and litigation prevented them from holding meetings. However, the ALJ noted that the Respondent's own counsel eventually admitted there were no legal defenses for failing to hold the meeting, and the failure was ruled a violation.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s counsel stated that there were no legal defenses to Respondent’s failure to hold a board meeting.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Section 7.1
Topic Tags
annual meetings
HOA defenses
bankruptcy
Question
If I include multiple complaints in my petition but only pay the fee for one, will the judge hear all of them?
Short Answer
No. The Administrative Law Judge will likely only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner included allegations regarding failure to respond to requests for special meetings and removal of directors, but because she only paid the $500 fee for one issue (failure to hold annual meetings), the other allegations were not addressed in the decision.
Alj Quote
The petition included other allegations including, but not limited to, the Board failure to respond to requests for a special meeting of members and/or a meeting to remove directors from the Board. However, Petitioner has paid for only one issue.
Legal Basis
Procedural Rule
Topic Tags
filing fees
petition scope
administrative procedure
Question
Does the failure to hold an annual meeting automatically invalidate the HOA's corporate actions?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. Bylaws often contain specific provisions stating that the failure to hold a meeting does not affect the validity of corporate actions.
Detailed Answer
The decision cites a specific section of the HOA's bylaws which explicitly states that missing the fixed time for an annual meeting does not invalidate corporate actions.
Alj Quote
The failure to hold an annual or regular meeting at a time stated in or fixed in accordance with the Bylaws does not affect the validity of any corporate action.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Section 7.1
Topic Tags
corporate actions
validity
bylaws
Question
What standard of proof must a homeowner meet to win a hearing against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The burden is on the petitioner to show that their contention is 'more probably true than not.' It is not based on the number of witnesses but on the convincing force of the evidence.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standard
evidence
Question
Can I be reimbursed for my filing fee if I win my case against the HOA?
Short Answer
Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to pay the filing fee back to the prevailing homeowner.
Detailed Answer
After ruling in favor of the petitioner regarding the failure to hold meetings, the judge ordered the HOA to pay the petitioner the $500 filing fee within 30 days.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association must pay to Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of receipt of this Order.
Legal Basis
Order of the ALJ
Topic Tags
reimbursement
filing fees
penalties
Question
Will the HOA always be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?
Short Answer
No. The judge may decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate even if a violation is found.
Detailed Answer
Although the HOA was found to have violated the bylaws by not holding meetings for two years, the judge explicitly declined to assess a civil penalty in this specific matter.
Alj Quote
No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.
Legal Basis
Judicial Discretion
Topic Tags
civil penalty
fines
enforcement
Case
Docket No
23F-H035-REL
Case Title
Barbara J. Ryan vs Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-04-17
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can an HOA skip annual member meetings due to ongoing litigation or bankruptcy proceedings?
Short Answer
No. Legal defenses based on external issues like litigation or bankruptcy may not validate the failure to hold meetings required by bylaws.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the HOA attempted to argue that bankruptcy and litigation prevented them from holding meetings. However, the ALJ noted that the Respondent's own counsel eventually admitted there were no legal defenses for failing to hold the meeting, and the failure was ruled a violation.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s counsel stated that there were no legal defenses to Respondent’s failure to hold a board meeting.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Section 7.1
Topic Tags
annual meetings
HOA defenses
bankruptcy
Question
If I include multiple complaints in my petition but only pay the fee for one, will the judge hear all of them?
Short Answer
No. The Administrative Law Judge will likely only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner included allegations regarding failure to respond to requests for special meetings and removal of directors, but because she only paid the $500 fee for one issue (failure to hold annual meetings), the other allegations were not addressed in the decision.
Alj Quote
The petition included other allegations including, but not limited to, the Board failure to respond to requests for a special meeting of members and/or a meeting to remove directors from the Board. However, Petitioner has paid for only one issue.
Legal Basis
Procedural Rule
Topic Tags
filing fees
petition scope
administrative procedure
Question
Does the failure to hold an annual meeting automatically invalidate the HOA's corporate actions?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. Bylaws often contain specific provisions stating that the failure to hold a meeting does not affect the validity of corporate actions.
Detailed Answer
The decision cites a specific section of the HOA's bylaws which explicitly states that missing the fixed time for an annual meeting does not invalidate corporate actions.
Alj Quote
The failure to hold an annual or regular meeting at a time stated in or fixed in accordance with the Bylaws does not affect the validity of any corporate action.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Section 7.1
Topic Tags
corporate actions
validity
bylaws
Question
What standard of proof must a homeowner meet to win a hearing against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The burden is on the petitioner to show that their contention is 'more probably true than not.' It is not based on the number of witnesses but on the convincing force of the evidence.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standard
evidence
Question
Can I be reimbursed for my filing fee if I win my case against the HOA?
Short Answer
Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to pay the filing fee back to the prevailing homeowner.
Detailed Answer
After ruling in favor of the petitioner regarding the failure to hold meetings, the judge ordered the HOA to pay the petitioner the $500 filing fee within 30 days.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association must pay to Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of receipt of this Order.
Legal Basis
Order of the ALJ
Topic Tags
reimbursement
filing fees
penalties
Question
Will the HOA always be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?
Short Answer
No. The judge may decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate even if a violation is found.
Detailed Answer
Although the HOA was found to have violated the bylaws by not holding meetings for two years, the judge explicitly declined to assess a civil penalty in this specific matter.
Alj Quote
No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.
Legal Basis
Judicial Discretion
Topic Tags
civil penalty
fines
enforcement
Case
Docket No
23F-H035-REL
Case Title
Barbara J. Ryan vs Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-04-17
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Barbara J. Ryan(petitioner) Appeared on behalf of herself
Bill Nethery(witness) Meadows Property Association member Listed as a witness on Petitioner's petition
Damon Rosen(applicant for board vacancy) Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association member Individual who submitted a resume to serve on the board
Respondent Side
Jody A. Corrales(HOA attorney) DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy Represented the Respondent, Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
Dorothy Marine(board member/witness) Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association Director and President of the board; testified at hearing
Cindy Celeste(board member) Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association Director
Jim Kasa(board member) Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association Director
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) OAH Also introduced herself as Sales Thompson
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Gail Olia(former board member) Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association Director who resigned; also referred to as Jill Olia
Sorl Tate(homeowner) Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association member Individual whose prior contentious state court proceeding against the HOA contributed to the bankruptcy
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation during the dissolution vote. The required 2/3 majority was achieved with 11 votes in favor, and the requirement for signed assent was met by the signatures provided on the ballot envelopes.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of voting requirements for dissolution of the Homeowners Association
Petitioner alleged that the dissolution vote was invalid because the ballots were not signed, and Respondent failed to achieve the 2/3 authorized votes needed, noting only 9 ballots were cast for dissolution. Respondent argued that 11 votes were cast, meeting the 2/3 requirement (10 votes needed), and that signatures on the ballot envelopes satisfied the Article XV requirement for assent given in writing and signed by Owners.
Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, Articles of Incorporation, Voting Rights, Dissolution, Burden of Proof, Planned Community
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H033-REL Decision – 1035350.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:11 (55.1 KB)
23F-H033-REL Decision – 1049512.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:15 (100.5 KB)
Questions
Question
If my HOA requires votes to be 'in writing and signed,' does the ballot itself need a signature?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. If the governing documents do not explicitly specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot may satisfy the requirement.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that if the Articles of Incorporation require assent 'in writing and signed' but do not specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot is sufficient compliance. In this case, envelopes with the homeowner's signature, lot number, and date were deemed to satisfy the requirement.
Alj Quote
Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation does not specify that the ballot itself must signed, and in this case, the signatures are contained on the envelopes that held the corresponding ballots, thereby satisfying the language of the charged provision.
Legal Basis
Articles of Incorporation, Article XV
Topic Tags
voting
ballots
signatures
governing documents
Question
If I own multiple lots, do I need to submit a separate physical ballot for each lot?
Short Answer
No, unless you can cite specific legal authority or governing documents that require separate physical ballots.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the argument that separate ballots are required for each vote possessed by homeowners who own multiple lots, specifically noting that the petitioner failed to provide any authority supporting that claim.
Alj Quote
Petitioner further testified that there should have been separate ballots for each vote for homeowners who own two lots. However, Petitioner did not cite to any authority establishing such.
Legal Basis
Lack of citation to authority
Topic Tags
voting
multiple lots
ballots
Question
How are votes counted if some homeowners own more than one property?
Short Answer
Votes are counted based on 'authorized votes' rather than just the number of physical ballots cast. One ballot may represent multiple votes.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ accepted the calculation where fewer physical ballots were cast than the total vote count because some ballots represented multiple votes (one for each lot owned). The decision validated that 9 ballots could validly represent 11 authorized votes.
Alj Quote
In this case, eleven (11) votes were cast on nine (9) ballots, which represents at least 2/3 of the owners authorized to vote.
Legal Basis
Articles of Incorporation, Article XV
Topic Tags
voting
vote counting
authorized votes
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner alleging the violation must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' It is not the HOA's job to disprove the allegation initially.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
It means the claim is more likely true than not.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ defines this standard as proof that convinces the decision-maker that the contention is 'more probably true than not,' or holds the greater weight of evidence.
Alj Quote
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Legal Basis
Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5
Topic Tags
legal definitions
evidence
standard of proof
Case
Docket No
23F-H033-REL
Case Title
Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date
2023-04-14
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If my HOA requires votes to be 'in writing and signed,' does the ballot itself need a signature?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. If the governing documents do not explicitly specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot may satisfy the requirement.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that if the Articles of Incorporation require assent 'in writing and signed' but do not specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot is sufficient compliance. In this case, envelopes with the homeowner's signature, lot number, and date were deemed to satisfy the requirement.
Alj Quote
Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation does not specify that the ballot itself must signed, and in this case, the signatures are contained on the envelopes that held the corresponding ballots, thereby satisfying the language of the charged provision.
Legal Basis
Articles of Incorporation, Article XV
Topic Tags
voting
ballots
signatures
governing documents
Question
If I own multiple lots, do I need to submit a separate physical ballot for each lot?
Short Answer
No, unless you can cite specific legal authority or governing documents that require separate physical ballots.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the argument that separate ballots are required for each vote possessed by homeowners who own multiple lots, specifically noting that the petitioner failed to provide any authority supporting that claim.
Alj Quote
Petitioner further testified that there should have been separate ballots for each vote for homeowners who own two lots. However, Petitioner did not cite to any authority establishing such.
Legal Basis
Lack of citation to authority
Topic Tags
voting
multiple lots
ballots
Question
How are votes counted if some homeowners own more than one property?
Short Answer
Votes are counted based on 'authorized votes' rather than just the number of physical ballots cast. One ballot may represent multiple votes.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ accepted the calculation where fewer physical ballots were cast than the total vote count because some ballots represented multiple votes (one for each lot owned). The decision validated that 9 ballots could validly represent 11 authorized votes.
Alj Quote
In this case, eleven (11) votes were cast on nine (9) ballots, which represents at least 2/3 of the owners authorized to vote.
Legal Basis
Articles of Incorporation, Article XV
Topic Tags
voting
vote counting
authorized votes
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner alleging the violation must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' It is not the HOA's job to disprove the allegation initially.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
It means the claim is more likely true than not.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ defines this standard as proof that convinces the decision-maker that the contention is 'more probably true than not,' or holds the greater weight of evidence.
Alj Quote
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Legal Basis
Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5
Topic Tags
legal definitions
evidence
standard of proof
Case
Docket No
23F-H033-REL
Case Title
Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date
2023-04-14
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford S. Burnes(petitioner) Also referred to as Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes
Respondent Side
John T. Crotty(HOA attorney) LAW OFFICES OF COLLIN T. WELCH
Esmeralda Sarina Ayala-Martinez(HOA President, witness) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Also referred to as Sarina Martinez or Serena Martinez
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ)
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) ADRE
Tammy I(ALJ) Mentioned as presiding over related case
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws by not holding elections. The Bylaw states the annual meeting is for the purpose of 'electing or announcing the results of the election of Directors' and transacting 'other business' (which included dissolution), and the HOA was not required to hold elections if results could have been announced or if dissolution proceedings were underway.
Why this result: The Bylaws did not strictly require elections be held, and Petitioner failed to object to the board remaining in place to oversee the dissolution.
Key Issues & Findings
Annual meeting
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws by failing to hold Board of Directors elections at the 2021 annual meeting. Respondent argued the language ('for the purpose of electing or announcing the results') did not require elections and that the dissolution vote superseded the immediate need for elections, especially since no one objected at the meeting.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition was denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H031-REL Decision – 1035344.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:49 (51.8 KB)
23F-H031-REL Decision – 1049021.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:51 (114.7 KB)
Study Guide – 23F-H031-REL
Select all sources
1035344.pdf
1045278.aac
1049021.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
23F-H031-REL
3 sources
These sources document a legal dispute between Clifford S. Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association regarding an alleged violation of community bylaws. The conflict centers on a December 2021 annual meeting where the association voted to dissolve the organization but did not hold new elections for its leadership. Burnes argued that Article 2.1 of the bylaws mandated an election, while the association maintained that the dissolution vote rendered new elections unnecessary. An administrative hearing transcript captures the testimony of both parties, highlighting disagreements over meeting procedures and the legal interpretation of governing documents. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that no mandatory election requirement was violated. The final decision emphasizes that the petitioner failed to object during the meeting and did not meet the burden of proof for his claims.
What are the legal arguments for and against dissolving the HOA?
How did the judge interpret the ‘purpose’ of the annual meeting?
Explain the role of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 2:17 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 23F-H031-REL
Select all sources
1035344.pdf
1045278.aac
1049021.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
23F-H031-REL
3 sources
These sources document a legal dispute between Clifford S. Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association regarding an alleged violation of community bylaws. The conflict centers on a December 2021 annual meeting where the association voted to dissolve the organization but did not hold new elections for its leadership. Burnes argued that Article 2.1 of the bylaws mandated an election, while the association maintained that the dissolution vote rendered new elections unnecessary. An administrative hearing transcript captures the testimony of both parties, highlighting disagreements over meeting procedures and the legal interpretation of governing documents. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that no mandatory election requirement was violated. The final decision emphasizes that the petitioner failed to object during the meeting and did not meet the burden of proof for his claims.
What are the legal arguments for and against dissolving the HOA?
How did the judge interpret the ‘purpose’ of the annual meeting?
Explain the role of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 2:17 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford S. Burnes(petitioner) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Member Also referred to as Clifford (Norm) Burnes.
Respondent Side
John T. Crotty(HOA attorney) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Esmerina Martinez(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association President; referred to as Serena Martinez or Esmerelda Martinez in sources.
Dave Madill(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Vice President; referred to as Dave Matt or Dave Mel in testimony.
Joseph Martinez(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's position that the HOA's denial of artificial turf violated CC&Rs Section 8.8. The ALJ found that because maintenance was shared and the HOA's CC&Rs cannot contradict the superior McCormick Ranch rules (which allow artificial turf), the denial was improper and the HOA failed to meet the exemption requirements under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).
Key Issues & Findings
Architectural disapproval of landscaping plans to install artificial turf
Petitioner alleged Respondent's disapproval of his landscaping plans to install artificial turf violated the CC&Rs and was unreasonable under Arizona law. The ALJ concluded the disapproval violated CC&Rs Section 8.8 because the maintenance responsibility was shared, not exclusive to the HOA, and the HOA's CC&Rs must not contradict McCormick Ranch's Rules, which permit artificial turf.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is affirmed. Respondent must reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee. Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&Rs Section 8.8 going forward.
Can my HOA prohibit artificial turf if the CC&Rs don't specifically ban it?
Short Answer
Likely not. If the CC&Rs are silent regarding artificial turf and do not explicitly prohibit it, the HOA may not be able to enforce a ban, especially if a master association permits it.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because the HOA's CC&Rs were silent regarding artificial turf and did not explicitly prohibit it, they could not ban it. This was further reinforced because the master association's rules, which the sub-association could not contradict, explicitly permitted artificial turf.
Alj Quote
Although Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf, they do not prohibit artificial turf and they shall not contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Construction; A.R.S. § 33-1819
Topic Tags
artificial turf
CC&Rs interpretation
architectural requests
Question
Can a sub-association ban artificial turf if the master association allows it?
Short Answer
No, generally a sub-association cannot contradict the master association's rules if its own governing documents prohibit such contradictions.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the sub-association's CC&Rs incorporated the master association's rules and stated they could not contradict them. Since the master association allowed artificial turf, the sub-association could not prohibit it.
Alj Quote
McCormick Ranch allows artificial turf, and Respondent cannot contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations according to Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 9.4.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 9.4; Governing Documents Hierarchy
Topic Tags
master association
sub-association
conflicting rules
Question
Does the HOA mowing my front lawn give them the exclusive right to ban artificial turf under state law?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, if the maintenance is shared. If the homeowner is responsible for irrigation and replacing plants, the HOA does not have exclusive maintenance rights to prohibit turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).
Detailed Answer
The HOA argued that because they mowed the lawn, they could prohibit artificial turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B). However, the judge found that because the homeowner paid for water and was responsible for keeping plants healthy (shared maintenance), the HOA could not use the maintenance statute to completely ban turf.
Alj Quote
In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner pays for and can control the irrigation of his property. It is also undisputed that the maintenance of the front yards of the homes within Respondent is shared between the individual homeowners and Respondent.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1819(B); CC&Rs Section 8.8
Topic Tags
maintenance responsibility
artificial turf
state statute
Question
Can an HOA deny an architectural request claiming it disrupts the 'harmony' of the neighborhood?
Short Answer
They can claim it, but a judge may overrule them if the evidence shows the improvement (like artificial turf) wouldn't actually violate the goal of harmony.
Detailed Answer
The HOA denied the request based on the 'overall goal of harmony,' arguing that artificial turf would look different from the natural grass in the neighborhood. The judge reviewed the evidence and concluded that installing artificial turf would not actually be contrary to the goal of harmony.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge further concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing, that the installation of artificial turf would not be contrary to the “overall goal of harmony of external design” as asserted by Respondent.
Legal Basis
Subjective Standards; Harmony Provisions
Topic Tags
architectural control
harmony
aesthetics
Question
Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA decision?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The decision explicitly states that in these administrative hearings, the Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated its governing documents.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal procedure
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to bring the case.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.
Legal Basis
Administrative Remedy
Topic Tags
fees
reimbursement
penalties
Question
Can the HOA deny my plans for being 'conceptual' if I provided specific details?
Short Answer
No. If the plans include specific information like plant types, numbers, and dimensions, the HOA cannot validly deny them as merely 'conceptual'.
Detailed Answer
The HOA denied the application claiming plans were 'conceptual.' The judge noted the plans contained specific types and numbers of plants, dimensions, and detailed renderings, and ultimately ruled the disapproval was a violation.
Alj Quote
Those plans contain the types and number of plants proposed, and the dimensions and shape of the area of artificial turf, and detailed renderings.
Legal Basis
Reasonableness of Approval Process
Topic Tags
architectural plans
application denial
reasonableness
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222063-REL
Case Title
Smoot Carl-Mitchell v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-04-13
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA prohibit artificial turf if the CC&Rs don't specifically ban it?
Short Answer
Likely not. If the CC&Rs are silent regarding artificial turf and do not explicitly prohibit it, the HOA may not be able to enforce a ban, especially if a master association permits it.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because the HOA's CC&Rs were silent regarding artificial turf and did not explicitly prohibit it, they could not ban it. This was further reinforced because the master association's rules, which the sub-association could not contradict, explicitly permitted artificial turf.
Alj Quote
Although Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf, they do not prohibit artificial turf and they shall not contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Construction; A.R.S. § 33-1819
Topic Tags
artificial turf
CC&Rs interpretation
architectural requests
Question
Can a sub-association ban artificial turf if the master association allows it?
Short Answer
No, generally a sub-association cannot contradict the master association's rules if its own governing documents prohibit such contradictions.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the sub-association's CC&Rs incorporated the master association's rules and stated they could not contradict them. Since the master association allowed artificial turf, the sub-association could not prohibit it.
Alj Quote
McCormick Ranch allows artificial turf, and Respondent cannot contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations according to Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 9.4.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 9.4; Governing Documents Hierarchy
Topic Tags
master association
sub-association
conflicting rules
Question
Does the HOA mowing my front lawn give them the exclusive right to ban artificial turf under state law?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, if the maintenance is shared. If the homeowner is responsible for irrigation and replacing plants, the HOA does not have exclusive maintenance rights to prohibit turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).
Detailed Answer
The HOA argued that because they mowed the lawn, they could prohibit artificial turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B). However, the judge found that because the homeowner paid for water and was responsible for keeping plants healthy (shared maintenance), the HOA could not use the maintenance statute to completely ban turf.
Alj Quote
In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner pays for and can control the irrigation of his property. It is also undisputed that the maintenance of the front yards of the homes within Respondent is shared between the individual homeowners and Respondent.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1819(B); CC&Rs Section 8.8
Topic Tags
maintenance responsibility
artificial turf
state statute
Question
Can an HOA deny an architectural request claiming it disrupts the 'harmony' of the neighborhood?
Short Answer
They can claim it, but a judge may overrule them if the evidence shows the improvement (like artificial turf) wouldn't actually violate the goal of harmony.
Detailed Answer
The HOA denied the request based on the 'overall goal of harmony,' arguing that artificial turf would look different from the natural grass in the neighborhood. The judge reviewed the evidence and concluded that installing artificial turf would not actually be contrary to the goal of harmony.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge further concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing, that the installation of artificial turf would not be contrary to the “overall goal of harmony of external design” as asserted by Respondent.
Legal Basis
Subjective Standards; Harmony Provisions
Topic Tags
architectural control
harmony
aesthetics
Question
Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA decision?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The decision explicitly states that in these administrative hearings, the Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated its governing documents.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal procedure
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to bring the case.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.
Legal Basis
Administrative Remedy
Topic Tags
fees
reimbursement
penalties
Question
Can the HOA deny my plans for being 'conceptual' if I provided specific details?
Short Answer
No. If the plans include specific information like plant types, numbers, and dimensions, the HOA cannot validly deny them as merely 'conceptual'.
Detailed Answer
The HOA denied the application claiming plans were 'conceptual.' The judge noted the plans contained specific types and numbers of plants, dimensions, and detailed renderings, and ultimately ruled the disapproval was a violation.
Alj Quote
Those plans contain the types and number of plants proposed, and the dimensions and shape of the area of artificial turf, and detailed renderings.
Legal Basis
Reasonableness of Approval Process
Topic Tags
architectural plans
application denial
reasonableness
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222063-REL
Case Title
Smoot Carl-Mitchell v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-04-13
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Carl-Mitchell Smoot(petitioner) Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. (Member) Former HOA President/Treasurer
Stewart F. Gross(petitioner attorney) Law Offices of Stewart F. Gross, PLLC
Respondent Side
Michael S. McLeran(HOA attorney) Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
Denise Mueller(board member/witness) Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. HOA Vice President; ALC Member
Dawn Feigert(property manager/witness) Trestle Management Group Senior Manager at HOA management company
Timothy Fischer(board member/witness) Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. HOA Treasurer; ALC Member
Kirk Nelson(board member/witness) Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. HOA President; ALC Member
Jan Greenfield(board member) Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. Former ARC Chair
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH Presided over hearings and issued final decision
Louis Dettorre(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed in transmission records prior to final decision
Susan Nicolson(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed in final decision transmission
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) OAH Presided over initial continuances
Bylaws Article II Paragraph 2.3 Bylaws Article III Section A Paragraph 3.5, Section B Paragraph 3.7, and Article IV Paragraph 4.2 Bylaws Article III Section B, Article IV Section 6.7(b), Article I Paragraph 1.3 A.R.S. 33-1804(A) A.R.S. 33-1804
Outcome Summary
Petitioner succeeded on two issues regarding the HOA's failure to hold its annual meeting at the prescribed time and improperly prohibiting the recording of an open session meeting. Respondent prevailed on the remaining three issues, as the ALJ found the bylaws did not require a separate organizational meeting, the community manager acted as an authorized agent to call a meeting, and Petitioner was not denied the opportunity to speak despite being muted at times during a videoconference. Respondent was ordered to refund $1,000 for the two successful issues.
Why this result: Petitioner lost on three issues because the bylaws did not strictly require the organizational meeting to be held separately, the community manager had authority as an agent to organize a meeting, and evidence demonstrated Petitioner was afforded multiple opportunities to speak during the Zoom meeting.
Key Issues & Findings
Annual Meetings
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold its annual meeting at the prescribed time in April 2022.
Orders: Petitioner deemed prevailing party. Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $500 for this issue.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Organizational Meetings
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold a separate organizational meeting to elect officers.
Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Authority to Call Board Meeting
Petitioner alleged the HOA manager was not authorized to organize or call a board meeting.
Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Open Meeting Recording
Petitioner alleged the HOA illegally prohibited homeowners from recording an open board meeting.
Orders: Petitioner deemed prevailing party. Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $500 for this issue.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Open Meeting Opportunity to Speak
Petitioner alleged the HOA muted participants during a Zoom meeting, preventing them from speaking.
Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H034-REL Decision – 1044665.pdf
Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:46:54 (166.9 KB)
23F-H034-REL Decision – 1048179.pdf
Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:02 (105.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 23F-H034-REL
Briefing on the Dispute Between Senol Pekin and the Artesian Ranch Community Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the key arguments, evidence, and outcomes from a consolidated administrative hearing concerning five allegations brought by homeowner and board member Senol Pekin against the Artesian Ranch Community Association (HOA). The dispute centers on alleged violations of the association’s bylaws and Arizona state statutes regarding the scheduling and conduct of board meetings.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the HOA in violation on two of the five issues: failing to hold its 2022 annual meeting on the date prescribed by the bylaws and improperly prohibiting the recording of an open board meeting in October 2022. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the petitioner’s filing fees of $1,000 for these violations.
The ALJ found in favor of the HOA on the remaining three issues. It concluded that the organizational meeting process was compliant with the bylaws, that a September 2022 board meeting was properly called by the HOA manager acting as an agent of the board, and that the petitioner failed to prove he was denied the opportunity to speak during the October 2022 meeting despite being muted at times. No civil penalties were deemed appropriate.
——————————————————————————–
I. Allegation 1: Improper Annual Meeting Date
Outcome: Violation Found
The petitioner prevailed on the allegation that the HOA violated its bylaws by holding the 2022 annual meeting in May, rather than on the mandated date.
Aspect
Details
Petitioner’s Allegation
The HOA violated Bylaws Article II, Paragraph 2.3, which requires the annual meeting to be held on the second Wednesday of April each year.
Respondent’s Defense
The Community Manager, Mandy Rogers, testified that upon taking over the account in January 2022, she presented a draft calendar to the prior board. The board chose the May date, following a “cadence” established in previous years. She noted the 2021 meeting was moved to August due to COVID-19, and the 2019 meeting was also not in April.
Supporting Testimony
– Mandy Rogers: Acknowledged awareness that the annual meeting is supposed to be in April. She stated, “Your annual meeting for the past 3 years was on the wrong date per the bylaw.” She confirmed the 2023 meeting was correctly scheduled for April. – Mandy Rogers: Explained her process for the 2022 calendar: “I looked at when their last annual meeting was and it was in August of 2021. So on that draft calendar, I said, ‘Do you want your meeting in August of 2022?’ And they said, ‘No, we traditionally have it in May.’ And I said, ‘Okay, you guys choose a date and a time that works for you.'”
ALJ Conclusion
The evidence showed the HOA failed to hold its meeting on the required date. The ALJ noted that while A.R.S. § 10-3701(e) states that failure to hold a timely meeting does not invalidate corporate action, it “does not provide an exception to the adherence to Bylaws that require a set time for an annual meeting.”
II. Allegation 2: Improper Organizational Meeting
Outcome: Violation Not Found
The petitioner failed to prove that the HOA violated bylaws regarding the scheduling and format of the organizational meeting.
Aspect
Details
Petitioner’s Allegation
The HOA did not elect officers in an “exclusively and timely scheduled Organizational Meeting” as required by its bylaws (Article III, Section 3.5 and 3.7). The petitioner argued the meeting should be a standalone event held shortly after directors take office on January 1st.
Respondent’s Defense
The organizational meeting was held during the August 2022 board meeting, which was the next scheduled open session after the May election. This delay was to allow for new board member training to be completed, as required by the bylaws. The bylaws mandate a meeting “within a reasonable time” and do not require it to be “exclusive.”
Supporting Testimony
– Mandy Rogers: “Your organizational meeting was specifically scheduled for the next open session board meeting which was in August. That was also to satisfy that your bylaws say that all board training should be done prior to that meeting.” She confirmed that the new director (Pekin) received training via Zoom and was provided a board book and access to the online platform. – Susanne Roskens (Board President): Confirmed that officer positions were discussed and voted on by the three present directors during the August meeting.
ALJ Conclusion
The bylaws do not require the organizational meeting to be held separately from a regular board meeting. The ALJ also noted that the Community Manager may act as an agent of the board.
Sub-Issue: Director Term Start Date
A significant point of contention was a bylaw provision (Section 3.5) stating that elected directors take office on January 1st of the following year.
• Mandy Rogers’ Testimony: She described this provision as highly unusual and professionally unheard of. “I’ve never seen governing documents that call out that you have an election in April and don’t take office until January. That’s unheard of.” She stated the association attorney was reviewing the provision.
• Association Practice: Board President Susanne Roskens testified that the association has never had directors wait until January to take office.
III. Allegation 3: Improperly Called September 2022 Board Meeting
Outcome: Violation Not Found
The petitioner failed to prove that the September 22, 2022 board meeting was improperly called by the HOA Manager.
Aspect
Details
Petitioner’s Allegation
The HOA Manager, Mandy Rogers, who is not a board member, was not authorized to call a board meeting. An email from her stated, “I’m scheduling a board meeting.”
Respondent’s Defense
The meeting was necessary to approve a time-sensitive landscaping and overseeding contract, as unanimous email approval could not be achieved. Board President Susanne Roskens verbally directed Mandy Rogers to schedule the meeting. The petitioner himself had requested a meeting on the topic in prior emails, and the third director, Dennis Burger, confirmed his support for the meeting in writing.
Supporting Testimony
– Mandy Rogers: “I spoke to your board president and at your request to schedule a meeting… I was given the directive to schedule it.” – Susanne Roskens: “I discussed it with Mandy via a phone call and asked if we could have a meeting to get clarification so that we could move forward.” – Exhibit I (Email Chain): This exhibit shows the petitioner requesting a meeting to discuss the topic, Mandy Rogers subsequently scheduling the meeting, the petitioner objecting to her authority, and Dennis Burger responding, “I’m confused meaning [Susanne] wants the meeting and ask her to set it up.”
ALJ Conclusion
The meeting was properly initiated. Ms. Rogers, as an employee of the Community Manager, may act as an agent of the Board.
IV. Allegation 4: Prohibition of Recording (October 24, 2022)
Outcome: Violation Found
The petitioner prevailed on the allegation that the HOA violated Arizona statute by prohibiting the recording of an open session meeting.
Aspect
Details
Petitioner’s Allegation
The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by prohibiting the recording of the open session meeting on October 24, 2022.
Respondent’s Defense
Mandy Rogers stated she made the announcement based on advice from the association attorney following a contentious executive session that preceded the open meeting. She also testified that the board requires advance notice of recording. The defense also argued the issue was moot because the petitioner recorded the meeting regardless.
Supporting Testimony
– Mandy Rogers: “A statement was made at the beginning of the session so the board could handle board business.” When asked who gave the direction to prohibit recording, she stated it was the attorney. – Shelly Nelson (Witness): Confirmed she remembered the association prohibiting recording of the open meeting. – Sherry Swanson (Witness): Confirmed, “The meeting started that way that she said you should not record.”
ALJ Conclusion
The preponderance of evidence shows that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 when it informed homeowners they were not allowed to record the board meeting.
V. Allegation 5: Muting and Silencing Opposition (October 24, 2022)
Outcome: Violation Not Found
The petitioner failed to prove that he was prevented from speaking for the opposing side during the October 24, 2022 meeting.
Aspect
Details
Petitioner’s Allegation
During the Zoom meeting, the HOA muted the petitioner, preventing him from voicing opposition on issues, in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.
Respondent’s Defense
Mandy Rogers admitted to muting the petitioner but justified it on several grounds: he was being “combative,” speaking over others, and bringing up confidential executive session topics in an open forum. His camera was off and he was self-muted at times, creating confusion about his presence and participation.
Witness Testimony
– Shelly Nelson: Did not perceive the petitioner’s behavior as combative. She described the overall tone of the meeting as “antagonistic” and felt “decisions were foregone conclusions.” – Sherry Swanson: Perceived both the petitioner and Mandy Rogers as “very argumentative.” She stated the petitioner “did come across very argumented from the beginning of the meeting” and came in “hotheaded.”
ALJ Conclusion
Petitioner failed to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ noted, “the evidence shows that Petitioner had several times to speak during the board meeting.”
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Senol Pekin(petitioner/board member) Director of Artesian Ranch Community Association Board
Julie Willowby(witness) Testified for Petitioner; Former Board President
Shelley Nelson(witness) Testified for Petitioner; Resident, daughter of homeowners John and Muriel Nelson
Sherry Swanson(witness) Testified for Petitioner; Homeowner
Respondent Side
Ashley N. Moscarello(HOA attorney) goodlaw.legal
Mandy Rogers(property manager) AAM, LLC Community Manager for Artesian Ranch
Susanne Easterday Roskens(board member) Director/Board President of Artesian Ranch Community Association Board
Dennis Burger(board member) Director of Artesian Ranch Community Association Board
Bylaws Article II Paragraph 2.3 Bylaws Article III Section A Paragraph 3.5, Section B Paragraph 3.7, and Article IV Paragraph 4.2 Bylaws Article III Section B, Article IV Section 6.7(b), Article I Paragraph 1.3 A.R.S. 33-1804(A) A.R.S. 33-1804
Outcome Summary
Petitioner succeeded on two issues regarding the HOA's failure to hold its annual meeting at the prescribed time and improperly prohibiting the recording of an open session meeting. Respondent prevailed on the remaining three issues, as the ALJ found the bylaws did not require a separate organizational meeting, the community manager acted as an authorized agent to call a meeting, and Petitioner was not denied the opportunity to speak despite being muted at times during a videoconference. Respondent was ordered to refund $1,000 for the two successful issues.
Why this result: Petitioner lost on three issues because the bylaws did not strictly require the organizational meeting to be held separately, the community manager had authority as an agent to organize a meeting, and evidence demonstrated Petitioner was afforded multiple opportunities to speak during the Zoom meeting.
Key Issues & Findings
Annual Meetings
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold its annual meeting at the prescribed time in April 2022.
Orders: Petitioner deemed prevailing party. Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $500 for this issue.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Organizational Meetings
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold a separate organizational meeting to elect officers.
Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Authority to Call Board Meeting
Petitioner alleged the HOA manager was not authorized to organize or call a board meeting.
Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Open Meeting Recording
Petitioner alleged the HOA illegally prohibited homeowners from recording an open board meeting.
Orders: Petitioner deemed prevailing party. Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $500 for this issue.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Open Meeting Opportunity to Speak
Petitioner alleged the HOA muted participants during a Zoom meeting, preventing them from speaking.
Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Decision Documents
23F-H037-REL Decision – 1037672.pdf
Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:37 (49.3 KB)
23F-H037-REL Decision – 1041383.pdf
Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:38 (50.6 KB)
23F-H037-REL Decision – 1044671.pdf
Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:38 (166.9 KB)
23F-H037-REL Decision – 1044839.pdf
Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:38 (36.5 KB)
23F-H037-REL Decision – 1048179.pdf
Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:38 (105.1 KB)
23F-H037-REL Decision – 1054714.pdf
Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:38 (47.2 KB)
**Case Overview**
**Case Title:** Consolidated Docket Nos. 23F-H034-REL and 23F-H037-REL
**Parties:** Senol Pekin (Petitioner) vs. Artesian Ranch Community Association (Respondent)
**Hearing Date:** March 20, 2023
**Judge:** Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson, Office of Administrative Hearings
**Main Issues**
The Petitioner brought five central allegations against the Respondent (the Homeowners' Association or HOA), claiming violations of the HOA's Bylaws and Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1804):
1. The HOA failed to hold its 2022 annual meeting on the required date (the second Wednesday of April).
2. The HOA failed to hold an exclusively scheduled organizational meeting to elect officers.
3. The HOA held a board meeting on September 22, 2022, that was unlawfully organized by the HOA Manager rather than the Board.
4. The HOA prohibited the recording of an open board session on October 24, 2022, violating A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).
5. The HOA unfairly silenced opposing sides by muting attendees during the October 24 Zoom meeting.
**Key Facts and Legal Arguments**
* **Annual Meeting Timing:** The HOA admitted it held the 2022 annual meeting in May instead of April, arguing it was merely a technical violation without harm, relying on A.R.S. § 10-3701(e). The Judge ruled that while corporate actions may remain valid under that statute, the HOA still directly violated its own Bylaws which mandate a specific timeline.
* **Organizational and Manager-Called Meetings:** The Judge found no requirement in the Bylaws that an organizational meeting to elect officers must be separate from a regular board meeting. Regarding the September meeting, the Judge determined that the HOA Manager acted lawfully as an agent of the Board at the request of the Board President.
* **Recording Prohibition and Muting:** Evidence confirmed the HOA Manager instructed homeowners not to record the October open meeting and required advance notice to do so. The Judge ruled this was a clear violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804, which explicitly guarantees members the right to record open meetings without providing advance notice. However, the Judge dismissed the claim regarding muting; evidence showed the Manager muted the Petitioner due to aggressive behavior, but the Petitioner was still given ample opportunity to speak during the meeting.
**Outcome and Final Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge issued a split decision on April 10, 2023:
* **Petitioner Prevailed:** The Petitioner won on Issues 1 (failure to hold the annual meeting on time) and 4 (unlawfully prohibiting the recording of an open meeting) [
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Senol Pekin(petitioner) Testified on his own behalf
Julie Willoughby(witness) Also spelled Julie Willowby in transcript
Shelley Nelson(witness) Also spelled Shelly Nelson in transcript
Sherry Swanson(witness)
Respondent Side
Ashley N. Moscarello(HOA attorney) Goodman Law Group Represented the respondent
Daniel S. Francom(HOA attorney) Goodman Law Group
Mandy Rogers(property manager) AAM, LLC Community Manager; testified as a witness for respondent
Susanne Easterday Roskens(board member) Artesian Ranch Community Association Director/President of Respondent's Board; testified as a witness for respondent
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Assigned Administrative Law Judge
Susan Nicolson(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Dennis Berger(subpoenaed individual) Subpoena for this individual was quashed
Brock O’Neal(subpoenaed individual) Motion to quash subpoena for this individual was denied
Rick Beaver(homeowner) Artesian Ranch Community Association Had an appeal reviewed during a board meeting; candidate for the board
Sandra Carlson(unknown) Copied on board packet email
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent, Citation Gardens Cooperative #1, does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community, and therefore, the statute prohibiting the denial of solar panels (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1816, as the ALJ determined a cooperative's purposes and functions are separate and distinct from those of a planned community, excluding it from the planned community definition.
Key Issues & Findings
Denial of request to install solar panels
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1816(A) by prohibiting the installation of a solar energy device, arguing the Cooperative qualifies as a planned community. Respondent argued it was a Cooperative Corporation, not a planned community, and the statute did not apply.
Orders: No action is required of Respondent in this matter, and the petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1816
A.R.S. § 33-1802
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Solar Energy Device, Planned Community Definition, Cooperative Housing, Statutory Applicability, Burden of Proof
Does the Arizona law protecting a homeowner's right to install solar panels apply to housing cooperatives?
Short Answer
No. The ALJ ruled that housing cooperatives do not fit the legal definition of a 'planned community,' so the solar protection statute (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply to them.
Detailed Answer
In this case, a member of a cooperative sought to install solar panels, citing A.R.S. § 33-1816, which prevents planned communities from prohibiting solar devices. The judge determined that while the definition of a planned community does not explicitly list cooperatives as an exclusion, the nature and purpose of a cooperative are distinct enough that they do not fall under the planned community statutes. Therefore, the cooperative was not legally required to permit the installation.
Alj Quote
Although the definition of a planned community does not expressly exclude a cooperative, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community, as their purposes and functions are separate and distinct.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1802; A.R.S. § 33-1816
Topic Tags
solar panels
cooperatives
planned community definition
Question
What happens if the HOA or respondent fails to attend the administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The hearing proceeds without them.
Detailed Answer
If the respondent (the HOA or Cooperative) has been properly notified of the hearing time and date but fails to appear or request a continuance, the Administrative Law Judge will conduct the hearing in their absence. The petitioner will still present their case, but the respondent loses the opportunity to defend themselves in person.
Alj Quote
Consequently, given that Respondent was properly noticed of the hearing, the hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence.
Legal Basis
Procedural Due Process
Topic Tags
hearing procedure
attendance
default
Question
Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
The petitioner (typically the homeowner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The person bringing the complaint must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not up to the HOA to disprove the claims initially; the homeowner must affirmatively establish that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
Is a housing cooperative considered a 'planned community' under Arizona law?
Short Answer
No, a cooperative is legally distinct from a planned community.
Detailed Answer
The decision clarifies that a planned community generally involves real estate owned/operated by a nonprofit where owners are mandatory members. A cooperative, however, is formed to acquire, own, and operate a housing project where members hold shares. The judge ruled that these are separate legal concepts with different purposes, meaning statutes specific to 'planned communities' do not automatically apply to cooperatives.
Alj Quote
Respondent is a nonprofit corporation that was formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning and operating a cooperative housing project… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1802
Topic Tags
definitions
cooperatives
planned community
Question
What is the standard of evidence required to win a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
To win, the evidence must show that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It means the evidence must incline a fair mind to one side even slightly more than the other.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Common Law / A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standards
Case
Docket No
23F-H026-REL
Case Title
Elizabeth Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1
Decision Date
2023-04-04
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Does the Arizona law protecting a homeowner's right to install solar panels apply to housing cooperatives?
Short Answer
No. The ALJ ruled that housing cooperatives do not fit the legal definition of a 'planned community,' so the solar protection statute (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply to them.
Detailed Answer
In this case, a member of a cooperative sought to install solar panels, citing A.R.S. § 33-1816, which prevents planned communities from prohibiting solar devices. The judge determined that while the definition of a planned community does not explicitly list cooperatives as an exclusion, the nature and purpose of a cooperative are distinct enough that they do not fall under the planned community statutes. Therefore, the cooperative was not legally required to permit the installation.
Alj Quote
Although the definition of a planned community does not expressly exclude a cooperative, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community, as their purposes and functions are separate and distinct.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1802; A.R.S. § 33-1816
Topic Tags
solar panels
cooperatives
planned community definition
Question
What happens if the HOA or respondent fails to attend the administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The hearing proceeds without them.
Detailed Answer
If the respondent (the HOA or Cooperative) has been properly notified of the hearing time and date but fails to appear or request a continuance, the Administrative Law Judge will conduct the hearing in their absence. The petitioner will still present their case, but the respondent loses the opportunity to defend themselves in person.
Alj Quote
Consequently, given that Respondent was properly noticed of the hearing, the hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence.
Legal Basis
Procedural Due Process
Topic Tags
hearing procedure
attendance
default
Question
Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
The petitioner (typically the homeowner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The person bringing the complaint must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not up to the HOA to disprove the claims initially; the homeowner must affirmatively establish that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
Is a housing cooperative considered a 'planned community' under Arizona law?
Short Answer
No, a cooperative is legally distinct from a planned community.
Detailed Answer
The decision clarifies that a planned community generally involves real estate owned/operated by a nonprofit where owners are mandatory members. A cooperative, however, is formed to acquire, own, and operate a housing project where members hold shares. The judge ruled that these are separate legal concepts with different purposes, meaning statutes specific to 'planned communities' do not automatically apply to cooperatives.
Alj Quote
Respondent is a nonprofit corporation that was formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning and operating a cooperative housing project… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1802
Topic Tags
definitions
cooperatives
planned community
Question
What is the standard of evidence required to win a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
To win, the evidence must show that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It means the evidence must incline a fair mind to one side even slightly more than the other.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Common Law / A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standards
Case
Docket No
23F-H026-REL
Case Title
Elizabeth Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1
Decision Date
2023-04-04
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Elizabeth Flint(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf and testified.
Respondent Side
Andrew Vizcarra(respondent representative) Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management Services, L.L.C. Did not appear at the hearing; also referenced verbally as 'Andrew Biscara'.
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Other Participants
James Knupp(Acting Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed on the service list for the Order Setting Hearing dated Feb 2, 2023.
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed on the service list for the Decision dated April 4, 2023.
AHansen(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case documents via email address.
vnunez(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case documents via email address.
djones(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case documents via email address.
labril(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case documents via email address.
The Administrative Law Judge denied Petitioner Michael H. Jahr's petition, concluding that he failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated ARS § 33-1816, because a clothesline is not a 'solar energy device' under ARS § 44-1761, and ARS § 33-439(a) was inapplicable.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof that the Association violated ARS § 33-1816. The Tribunal determined that a clothesline does not meet the statutory definition of a solar energy device.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of ARS § 33-1816 regarding denial of utilizing solar means to reduce energy consumption.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated ARS § 33-1816 by refusing him the ability to utilize solar means (a clothesline) to reduce energy consumption, arguing the clothesline met the definition of a 'solar energy device' under ARS § 44-1761, which the HOA cannot prohibit.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied. Respondent was ordered not to owe Petitioner any reimbursement for fees incurred.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1816(a-b)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 44-1761
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-439(a)
Association Rules & Regulations 2-304(D)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Dispute, Solar Energy Device, Clothesline, Planned Community, Statutory Interpretation, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-439(a)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(a)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1816(a-b)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 44-1761
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)
Association Rules & Regulations 2-304(D)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H032-REL Decision – 1041743.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:59 (161.1 KB)
23F-H032-REL Decision – 1057366.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:04 (55.7 KB)
Questions
Question
Can my HOA prohibit me from using a clothesline in my backyard?
Short Answer
Yes, if the community rules prohibit them.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that an HOA can prohibit clotheslines because they do not qualify as protected solar energy devices under Arizona law. In this case, the association's rules explicitly prohibited clotheslines visible from outside the residence.
Alj Quote
Based on the relevant and credible evidence of record… the Tribunal finds that a clothesline is not a solar energy device. Moreover, Petitioner knew or should have known that clotheslines were prohibited by the Association under Rules & Regulations 2-304(D).
Legal Basis
Rules & Regulations 2-304(D); ARS 33-1816
Topic Tags
architectural_control
prohibited_items
solar_energy
Question
Is a clothesline considered a 'solar energy device' legally protected by Arizona statute?
Short Answer
No, a clothesline does not meet the statutory definition of a solar energy device.
Detailed Answer
The decision clarified that a clothesline does not fit the legal definition of a 'solar energy device' (specifically a 'system or series of mechanisms') under A.R.S. § 44-1761, and therefore does not enjoy the statutory protection that voids HOA restrictions on solar devices.
Alj Quote
Based on the relevant and credible evidence of record, including the aforementioned germane statutory definitions, and lacking any binding citations offered from a court of competent jurisdiction, the Tribunal finds that a clothesline is not a solar energy device.
Legal Basis
ARS 44-1761(8); ARS 33-439(a)
Topic Tags
solar_energy
definitions
statutory_interpretation
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA decision?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
When a homeowner petitions for a hearing, they bear the burden of proving that the HOA violated community documents or statutes. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden_of_proof
legal_standards
hearing_procedure
Question
Can I be reimbursed for my filing fees if I lose the hearing?
Short Answer
No, reimbursement is generally not awarded if the petition is denied.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ordered that because the petition was denied, the HOA did not owe the homeowner any reimbursement for fees incurred during the filing process.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent does not owe Petitioner any reimbursement(s) for fees incurred in association with the filing of this petition.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
fees
reimbursement
penalties
Question
Are CC&Rs considered a binding contract?
Short Answer
Yes, CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the HOA and the homeowner.
Detailed Answer
The decision affirms that when a property is purchased within a planned community, the buyer agrees to be bound by the CC&Rs, which function as a contract.
Alj Quote
Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.
Legal Basis
Common Law
Topic Tags
cc&rs
contract_law
governing_documents
Question
Can I use a flag pole sleeve for something other than a flag, like a clothesline?
Short Answer
No, if the permit was granted specifically for a flag pole.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the homeowner obtained a permit for a flag pole sleeve but used it for a clothesline. The HOA was entitled to issue a violation notice because the use differed from the approved purpose and violated other rules.
Alj Quote
Respondent did, however, grant Petitioner’s sleeve request with the explicit instruction that its use was for the purpose of flag display… As such, the Association’s October 31, 2022, VIOLATION NOTICE was not issued unlawfully or in error.
Legal Basis
ARS 33-1808(a)
Topic Tags
architectural_requests
permits
flag_poles
Question
How do courts interpret words in statutes that aren't explicitly defined?
Short Answer
They use the ordinary meaning of the words, often consulting dictionaries.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ looked to the 'natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning' of words. Since the statute did not define 'clothesline,' the judge consulted Merriam Webster to define terms like 'system' and 'mechanism' to see if a clothesline fit the description.
Alj Quote
Words should be given 'their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning.'… BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY does not define 'clothesline' or 'solar energy device.' Per Merriam Webster, however, 'system' means a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole
Legal Basis
Statutory Construction Principles
Topic Tags
legal_standards
definitions
interpretation
Question
What is the deadline for filing a request for a rehearing?
Short Answer
30 days from the service of the order.
Detailed Answer
If a party wishes to request a rehearing, they must file it with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the decision.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this ORDER upon the parties.
Legal Basis
ARS 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
appeals
deadlines
procedural_requirements
Case
Docket No
23F-H032-REL
Case Title
Michael H. Jahr vs. Leisure World Community Association
Decision Date
2023-03-14
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA prohibit me from using a clothesline in my backyard?
Short Answer
Yes, if the community rules prohibit them.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that an HOA can prohibit clotheslines because they do not qualify as protected solar energy devices under Arizona law. In this case, the association's rules explicitly prohibited clotheslines visible from outside the residence.
Alj Quote
Based on the relevant and credible evidence of record… the Tribunal finds that a clothesline is not a solar energy device. Moreover, Petitioner knew or should have known that clotheslines were prohibited by the Association under Rules & Regulations 2-304(D).
Legal Basis
Rules & Regulations 2-304(D); ARS 33-1816
Topic Tags
architectural_control
prohibited_items
solar_energy
Question
Is a clothesline considered a 'solar energy device' legally protected by Arizona statute?
Short Answer
No, a clothesline does not meet the statutory definition of a solar energy device.
Detailed Answer
The decision clarified that a clothesline does not fit the legal definition of a 'solar energy device' (specifically a 'system or series of mechanisms') under A.R.S. § 44-1761, and therefore does not enjoy the statutory protection that voids HOA restrictions on solar devices.
Alj Quote
Based on the relevant and credible evidence of record, including the aforementioned germane statutory definitions, and lacking any binding citations offered from a court of competent jurisdiction, the Tribunal finds that a clothesline is not a solar energy device.
Legal Basis
ARS 44-1761(8); ARS 33-439(a)
Topic Tags
solar_energy
definitions
statutory_interpretation
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA decision?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
When a homeowner petitions for a hearing, they bear the burden of proving that the HOA violated community documents or statutes. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden_of_proof
legal_standards
hearing_procedure
Question
Can I be reimbursed for my filing fees if I lose the hearing?
Short Answer
No, reimbursement is generally not awarded if the petition is denied.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ordered that because the petition was denied, the HOA did not owe the homeowner any reimbursement for fees incurred during the filing process.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent does not owe Petitioner any reimbursement(s) for fees incurred in association with the filing of this petition.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
fees
reimbursement
penalties
Question
Are CC&Rs considered a binding contract?
Short Answer
Yes, CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the HOA and the homeowner.
Detailed Answer
The decision affirms that when a property is purchased within a planned community, the buyer agrees to be bound by the CC&Rs, which function as a contract.
Alj Quote
Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.
Legal Basis
Common Law
Topic Tags
cc&rs
contract_law
governing_documents
Question
Can I use a flag pole sleeve for something other than a flag, like a clothesline?
Short Answer
No, if the permit was granted specifically for a flag pole.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the homeowner obtained a permit for a flag pole sleeve but used it for a clothesline. The HOA was entitled to issue a violation notice because the use differed from the approved purpose and violated other rules.
Alj Quote
Respondent did, however, grant Petitioner’s sleeve request with the explicit instruction that its use was for the purpose of flag display… As such, the Association’s October 31, 2022, VIOLATION NOTICE was not issued unlawfully or in error.
Legal Basis
ARS 33-1808(a)
Topic Tags
architectural_requests
permits
flag_poles
Question
How do courts interpret words in statutes that aren't explicitly defined?
Short Answer
They use the ordinary meaning of the words, often consulting dictionaries.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ looked to the 'natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning' of words. Since the statute did not define 'clothesline,' the judge consulted Merriam Webster to define terms like 'system' and 'mechanism' to see if a clothesline fit the description.
Alj Quote
Words should be given 'their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning.'… BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY does not define 'clothesline' or 'solar energy device.' Per Merriam Webster, however, 'system' means a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole
Legal Basis
Statutory Construction Principles
Topic Tags
legal_standards
definitions
interpretation
Question
What is the deadline for filing a request for a rehearing?
Short Answer
30 days from the service of the order.
Detailed Answer
If a party wishes to request a rehearing, they must file it with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the decision.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this ORDER upon the parties.
Legal Basis
ARS 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
appeals
deadlines
procedural_requirements
Case
Docket No
23F-H032-REL
Case Title
Michael H. Jahr vs. Leisure World Community Association
Decision Date
2023-03-14
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael H. Jahr(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Daniel Clark Collier(assistant community manager) Leisure World Community Association Appeared on behalf of Respondent and testified as a witness
Regis Salazar(witness) Testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(commissioner) ADRE Recipient of recommended decision
Other Participants
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of electronic transmission
vnunez(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of electronic transmission
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of electronic transmission
labril(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of electronic transmission
